Author
Topic: Joe Republican (Read 8580 times)

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work.

He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

OK, "what is Joe lives in a broke country because the nice liberals gave all the money away to people who didn't earn it?"

or

or...."what is "what killed Joe?" answer? "what is Joe's tax bill?"

actually, Joe is unemployed and on his 3rd year of unemployment "benefits" because it's so much easier to cash a check than to work for one :-D

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

As always, liberal hogwash. My education was paid for by crawling through the jungles of Nam. My house was a conventional loan, paid with less than half my wages. The liberal Give'ment took a bit more than half. I don't have medical ins. I pay for what my VA doesn't furnish. I feel like I paid dearly for the part VA pays.

I have never applied for food stamps, welfare, governments grants or loans, or otherwise tried to live off what someone else earned.

The only time I worked under a union contract was when the state required it, and I didn't like it.

You can keep your socialism.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

Being self employed, if I want anything, I have to get it myself, do it myself, or see that it gets done. And that is for everything I do. I don't need anyone to hold my hand or babysit me. And I would like to keep what ever I choose to earn. When I choose to help someone, I need to do if with my own free will, not have the government do it for me.

Paragraph 5 says it all; "America-hating liberal." Beek 4018, maybe some other country would suit your needs better. I don't want to pay for Joe's medical care, his retirement plan, his automobile or the food he eats, and the air I breathe is perfectly fine for me. I own, and have owned since I left the military, my own business. Anyone in this country can do the same; I don't need the government to do anything beyond the defense of my country. I'm a union hater, thankfully I live in a right to work state. When my father died, his union refused to pay my mother any benefits that he had paid dues into since the age of 16. Reason #1: the last 3 months of his life he was dying in bed and could not pay the last 3 months of dues; Reason #2: the union squandered all the pension fund by giving it to the Mafia for safekeeping. Our constitution does not guarantee you a living, nor does it require taxpayers to pay for you to live a comfortable life. Make your own way through your time on earth, we don't need your drivel!

Kathy, you seem to somehow think that we were debt free and running a tight ship before liberals got the purse strings. Funny but we've been running a deficit and debt in this country for decades through BOTH liberal and conservative admins. and Congresses. It's not a liberal or conservative problem. It's systemic.

And I seem to remember that you laid all of the financial blame on Congress back in the fall ( when it was a democratic Congress) saying "they hold the purse strings", so they are responsible period.

So, what, now that Conservatives have got the house, why isn't his fixed? What happened to we're gonna take over and change D.C.? The tea party is just as corked as they rest of them. And now that y'all are in power, nothing is likely to get fixed.

And you'll say Obama is standing in the way. To which I'll say but you said Congress holds the purse strings. And yes there is a liberal Senate, but last I checked nothing has even gotten that far from the House. So when conservatives "hold the purse strings" nothing has changed.

beek, i don't mind having my words quoted back to me. i do mind your attempt to reinterpret what i have said according to your own preconceptions of my beliefs. just about everything you have written about my thinking is wrong. the rest of your ideas about what should have been done between January and now is just crap.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

All I ever wanted from the government was to be left alone. Nothing is exactly what I want congress to do. All the time. In fact if they would all go home and stop "billing" me I'd be fine. I love it when they have some budget controversy and they shut down the Federal government for a month, and none of of notices any difference... you'd think they be worried that we'd find out we do fine without them...

"The men work silently in the fields, the women weep silently in the kitchens, the legislature is back in session and no man's property is safe."--Daniel Webster.

The world would be so much better if we just had less government and more free trade. More Chinese and Brazilian honey to drive the prices down - if honey were cheaper, more people would buy it, and American beeks would actually be making more money. No need for any government inspection to determine if the honey was cut with cane sugar or corn syrup - ... if the consumer can't tell the difference, why should the government care?? Let people freely import queens and packages from all over the world without inspecting them for disease, as that is just another attempt for government to get up in our business, drive up prices, and make US more dependent on THEM. End the use of tax money to offer beekeeping courses through the socialist county extension offices (the extensions should be privatized - corporations like Monsanto and Cargill could educate twice as many people about agriculture for half the price). Stop the government from putting any limits on which pesticides are manufactured and sold or how they are used. These modest steps to end government tyranny would bring beekeeping in America into a new golden age.

If the government were not there, do you think everyone else would leave you alone? The banks just proved that without government regulation, they will destroy the financial system. The internet we are posting on right now was created by government. If you get sick and have to have medical care, most of the treatments you would get come from government financed research. Government is the way civilized people band together to protect themselves from all the "everyone elses" in the world.

Quote

I love it when they have some budget controversy and they shut down the Federal government for a month, and none of of notices any difference... you'd think they be worried that we'd find out we do fine without them...

I think that has only happened once in my lifetime... in 1995. It lasted a few weeks before the Republicans voted to refund the government. Turned out their constituents did notice. :-D As I recall, all their rich donors discovered they couldn't get passports so they couldn't travel. Of course we could end passport controls and just let "everyone else" into the country. How would that be?

If you get sick and have to have medical care, most of the treatments you would get come from government financed research.

Funny thing. I think there is a program put on every year by some guy..... Ummmm What's his name?? OH yeah Jerry Lewis. He is always trying to raise a few pennies for some muscular something something...... I don't think the government has anything to do with that.

Oh and isn't there some charitable drive going on for breast cancer? And some other cancers?

I guess the government just over looks some of the things we need done. Perhaps people can take care of it themselves.

What if the people stop running to the government crying, "You got to do this. You got to do that." And started banding together and doing it themselves.

I use to could afford to go see the Doctor when I had no insurance. But now it seems medical bills are so ridiculously high. And now I have to buy insurance... which I can't afford... to cover those ridiculously high medical bills that are probably ridiculously high because of the government and people wanting to sue doctors over every little thing. :roll:

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

I would say people should do what they need to do to have what they need, both at the present time and in the future, without relying on gifts and free handouts. The military is only one possible step to take.

I didn't say I didn't get a good deal, I just said I worked for what I get.

Do you think it's a bad deal if you actually have to WORK for it?

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work.

He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

this is one of the most fallacy-laden pieces of gibberish i've ever read. it's one thing to not like glenn beck, but to be ignorant on many more issues is inexcusable and a testament to what is wrong with this country.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

And Lawrence Reed:

1. The fallacy of collective terms. Examples of collective terms are “society,” “community,” “nation,” “class,” and “us.” The important thing to remember is that they are abstractions, figments of the imagination, not living, breathing, thinking, and acting entities. The fallacy involved here is presuming that a collective is, in fact, a living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity.

The good economist recognizes that the only living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity is the individual. The source of all human action is the individual. Others may acquiesce in one’s action or even participate, but everything which occurs as a consequence can be traced to particular, identifiable individuals.

Consider this: could there even be an abstraction called “society” if all individuals disappeared? Obviously not. A collective term, in other words, has no existence in reality independent of the specific persons which comprise it.

It is absolutely essential to determine origins and responsibility and even cause and effect that economists avoid the fallacy of collective terms. One who does not will bog down in horrendous generalizations. He will assign credit or blame to non-existent entities. He will ignore the very real actions (individual actions) going on in the dynamic world around him. He may even speak of “the economy” almost as if it were a big man who plays tennis and eats corn flakes for breakfast.

2. The fallacy of composition. This error also involves individuals. It holds that what is true for one individual will be true for all others.

The example has often been given of one who stands up during a football game. True, he will be able to see better, but if everyone else stands up too, the view of many individual spectators will probably worsen.

A counterfeiter who prints a million dollars will certainly benefit himself (if he doesn’t get caught) but if we all become counterfeiters and each print a million dollars, a quite different effect is rather obvious.

Many an economics textbook speaks of the farmer who is better off because he has a bumper crop but may not be better off if every farmer has one. This suggests a widespread recognition of the fallacy of composition, yet it is a fact that the error still abounds in many places.

The good economist neither sees the trees and ignores the forest nor sees the forest and ignores the trees; he is conscious of the entire “picture.”

3. The fallacy of “money is wealth.” The mercantilists of the 1600s raised this error to the pinnacle of national policy. Always bent upon heaping up hoards of gold and silver, they made war on their neighbors and looted their treasures. If England was richer than France, it was, according to the mercantilists, because England had more precious metals in its possession, which usually meant in the king’s coffers.

It was Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, who exploded this silly notion. A people are prosperous to the extent they possess goods and services, not money, Smith declared. All the money in the world—paper or metallic—will still leave one starving if goods and services are not available.

The “money is wealth” error is the affliction of the currency crank. From John Law to John Maynard Keynes, great populations have hyperinflated themselves to ruin in pursuit of this illusion. Even today we hear cries of “we need more money” as the government’s monetary authorities crank it out at double digit rates.

The good economist will recognize that money creation is no short-cut to wealth. Only the production of valued goods and services in a market which reflects the consumer’s wishes can relieve poverty and promote prosperity.

4. The fallacy of production for its own sake. Although production is essential to consumption, let’s not put the proverbial cart before the horse. We produce in order that we may consume, not the other way around.

I enjoy writing and teaching but I enjoy sunning in Acapulco even more. I have labored to produce this piece and to teach its principles in my classes instead of going to Acapulco first because I know that’s the only way I’ll ever get out of Michigan. Writing and teaching are the means; sunning in Acapulco is the end.

A free economy is a dynamic economy. It is the site of what the economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” New ideas supplant old ideas, new products and methods replace old products and methods, and whole new industries render obsolete old industries.

This occurs because production must constantly change shape to conform with the changing shape of consumer demand. As Henry Hazlitt has written, “it is just as necessary to the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries be allowed to die as that growing industries be allowed to grow.”

A bad economist who falls prey to this ancient fallacy is like the fabled pharaoh who thought pyramid-building was healthy in and of itself; or the politician who promotes leaf-raking where there are no leaves to be raked, just to keep people “busy.”

It seems that whenever an industry gets in trouble, some people cry that it must be preserved “at all costs.” They would pour millions or billions of dollars in subsidies on the industry to prevent the market’s verdict from being heard. The bad economist will join the chorus and ignore the deleterious impact that would befall the consumer.

The good economist, on the other hand, does not confuse ends with means. He understands that production is important only because consumption is even more so.

Want an example of this fallacy at work? How about the many proposals to prevent consumers from buying Japanese autos in order to “protect” the American auto industry from competition?

5. The fallacy of the “free lunch.” The Garden of Eden is a thing of the distant past yet some people (yes, even some economists) occasionally think and act as if economic goods can come with no cost attached. Milton Friedman is one economist who has warned repeatedly, however, that “there is no such thing as a free lunch!”

Every “something for nothing” scheme and most “get rich quick” plans have some element of this fallacy in them. Let there be no mistake about this: if economics is involved, someone pays!

An important note here regards government expenditures. The good economist understands that government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes. A “free” park for Midland, Michigan is a park which millions of taxpaying Americans (including Midlanders) actually do pay for.

A friend of mine once told me that all one needs to know about economics is “What is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it?” That little nutshell carries a kernel of advice for the economist: don’t be superficial in your thinking!

6. The fallacy of the short run. In a sense, this fallacy is a summary of the previous five.

Some actions seem beneficial in the short run but produce disaster in the long run: drinking excessively, driving fast, spending blindly, and printing money, to name a few. To quote the venerable Henry Hazlitt again, “The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences.”

Politicians seeking to win the next election frequently support policies which generate short- run benefits at the expense of future costs. It is a shame that they sometimes carry the endorsement of economists who should know better.

The good economist does not suffer from tunnel vision or shortsightedness. The time span he considers is long and elastic, not short and fixed.

7. The fallacy of economics by coercion. Two hundred years after Adam Smith, some economists still have not learned to apply basic principles of human nature. These economists speak of “increasing output”

but prescribe the stick rather than the carrot to get the job done.

Humans are social beings who progress if they cooperate with one another. Cooperation implies a climate of freedom for each individual human being to peacefully pursue his own self- interest without fear of reprisal. Put a human in a zoo or in a strait jacket and his creative ener gies dissipate.

Why did Thomas Edison invent the light bulb? It was not because some planner ordered him to!

Take a look around the world today and you see the point I am driving at. Compare North Korea with South Korea, Red China with Taiwan or Hong Kong, or East Germany with West Germany.

One would think, with such overwhelming evidence against the record of coercion, that coercion would have few adherents. Yet there are many economists here and abroad who cry for nationalization of industry, wage and price controls, confiscatory taxation, and even outright abolition of private property. One prominent former U.S. senator declared that “what this country needs is an army, navy, and air force in the economy.”

There’s an old adage which is enjoying new publicity of late. It reads, “If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.” The good economist realizes that if you want the baker to bake a bigger pie, you don’t beat him up and steal his flour.

Well, there you have it—not the final answer to confusion in economics, but at least a start. I for one am convinced that good economics is more than possible. It is imperative, and achieving it begins with the knowledge of what bad economics is all about.

so, that said quit picking on parties and start attacking philosophies....that's the battle....a good case in point is obama...everyone thought things would be better and different with bush out of office....well, that's not the case....obama picked up right where bush left off....how do you like them apples....

"Many fundamentalists have no patience for even a word of mystical belief--then wonder why others have no patience for listening to what the fundamentalists believe. I can explain my own such experience with a parable:If you were basking in bright sunlight, and hugely thankful for it, and a man a quarter-mile away suddenly shouted, "Hey you! I can see the sun from over here! Stop what you're doing and come over where I am! Hurry! You've GOT to come here! I see the SUN! Come out of your darkness, sinner! Get over to where I am!" is there any reason to obey him? On the contrary, if you obey, you indulge the shouter's peace shattering belief that the sun is so limited that it can only be seen from where he is standing, and you reinforce his false assumption that everyone but he is a fool living in darkness. Is it the work of sun worshipers to honor those who think only they can see the sun? Or to worship the sun?" - David James Duncan

Ron Paul in 2007: The midterm congressional elections are over, and the Iraq Study Group report is complete. Many Americans are unhappy about the war and want a change in policy. But what we are going to get from both parties in Washington is more of the same-- much more-- when it comes to Iraq. President Bush not only wants to stay the course, he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The “new approach” is simply escalation, with no timetable and still no definition of victory. In fact, the president promised last week that, “They can’t run us out of the Middle East,” and that we will not retreat from Iraq. Worse, he asserted that America will, “Stay in the fight for a long period of time.” According to the President, we must increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps to provide the bodies to make this possible. In other words, our troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are building several huge, permanent military bases there, along with the biggest embassy in the world to serve as the command post for our occupation. The embassy compound alone will cost more than one billion dollars. This doesn’t sound like the “new generation” warfare envisioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but more like old-fashioned occupation-- which requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Once again, more of the same. The Pentagon, not surprisingly, has requested an additional $100 billion to keep the war going. This money will not be included in the annual budget or deficit numbers, but will be whitewashed as an “off-budget” expenditure. If all this were not enough, the president has ordered aircraft carrier groups to position themselves in the Persian Gulf in a new show of bellicosity toward Iran. Anyone who voted for Democrats last month expecting a change in our Iraq policy was sorely mistaken. Incoming congressional leaders have publicly stated their support for increasing troop levels, and Democrats have no intention of pursuing any serious withdrawal plan in Congress. They will not withhold war funding. The war will plod on, and Democrats will call for more of the same. In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it-- or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government. Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.

I'm sure you did work for the government services you get. Many people work very hard and don't get free medical care or education. And some folks make a lot of money from the work of others. I don't think that wealth is synonymous with virtue. And I think that if the wealthy (regardless of how they got that way) pay a fair tax rate, we can afford to supply a decent level of education and health care to all citizens. That's what I think. :-D

9:00pm, Joe crawls in bed, pulls his 9mm out from under his pillow and kisses it.

i am beginning to lose just a bit of faith in Joe. he should know that a 9mm isn't the best weapon to keep under your pillow. you want something that will take 'em out with the first shot.

Quote

The banks just proved that without government regulation, they will destroy the financial system

you mean the government just proved that with "oversight" they will destroy the banks?

Quote

The internet we are posting on right now was created by government

this is true. there are innovations that come out of military and space programs. however, nothing developed in those programs has been successfully marketed to us by the government. it took private companies to make them work and make them cost effective.

Quote

Government is the way civilized people band together to protect themselves from all the "everyone elses" in the world.

government is a tool of oppression when it is not controlled and limited BY the people. because our founders knew that defense was important, it is one of the few enumerated jobs of the federal government.

STATES are where people band together for common cause. in this way, those of like mind may decide how much government they wish to tolerate. we are a nation of states for a reason.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

And I think that if the wealthy (regardless of how they got that way) pay a fair tax rate, we can afford to supply a decent level of education and health care to all citizens. That's what I think.

we spend more per student and have lower test scores than almost any other country in the world. money is not the reason for a lack of decent education for kids.

please define "fair tax rate".

i think it would be fair to have a flat tax rate that everyone paid no matter income or source of income.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....